In response to the ruling in Town of Greece v. Galloway, which determined that Christian prayer before town council meetings in Greece, N.Y., does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, a flurry of reaction ensued. Evangelical Christian groups were triumphant. Atheist, humanist, secularist and Jewish groups were disappointed. Here is a sampling of some of the reaction.

The American Family Association issued the following statement after the United States Supreme Court ruled that public prayer at town board meetings does not violate the Constitution.

“We are extremely pleased with the Court’s ruling, as it upholds the religious liberty guaranteed in our Constitution and also recognizes the centuries of public prayer that have characterized our nation,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “From America’s earliest days, her leaders have publicly petitioned God for wisdom, forgiveness, and blessing, and even Thomas Jefferson – the author of the famous ‘separation of church and state’ letter – attended Congressionally permitted church services in the United States Capitol building. To this day, both Congress and the Supreme Court begin their proceedings with a prayer, and we applaud the Court for recognizing the truth about our nation’s history and laws, and upholding the precious freedoms woven throughout both.”

"The Court's landmark decision today echoes the wisdom of the Founders," said Eric Rassbach, Deputy General Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. "Not only did the Court uphold the centuries-old practice of legislative prayer, it also started the work of bringing the entire law of church and state onto a firmer foundation in the words of the Constitution."

Russell D. Moore, president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, said the Supreme Court made the right decision.

"I am very thankful the Court did the right thing . . . [t]his is a victory for all of those who believe in the freedom of speech, including religious speech, as a prized part of our God-given religious liberty," Moore said. "Prayer at the beginning of a meeting is a signal that we aren't ultimately just Americans. We are citizens of the State, yes, but the State isn't ultimate. There is some higher allegiance than simply political process."

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represented the town of Greece, N.Y. in the lawsuit. Lead counsel Thomas G. Hungar of the Washington, D.C., law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, argued the case before the Supreme Court in November 2013.

"In America, we tolerate a diversity of opinions and beliefs; we don't silence people or try to separate what they say from what they believe, said ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman. "Opening public meetings with prayer is a cherished freedom that the authors of the Constitution themselves practiced. Speech censors should have no power to silence volunteers who pray for their communities just as the Founders did."

The Anti-Defamation League today said that it is “deeply disturbed and profoundly troubled” by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision sanctioning explicitly sectarian prayers before local town boards. In Greece v. Galloway, a closely divided Court decided that a local policy resulting in virtually all invocations before a town board being Christian in nature did not violate the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

The Supreme Court's ruling reversed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that held the policy unconstitutional.

Barry Curtiss-Lusher, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

"We are deeply disturbed and profoundly troubled by this decision. The rule announced by the Court today authorizes elected officials or clergy to give sectarian prayers in the name of Jesus, Hashem, Allah or any other deity before Congress, state legislatures, or local town boards. The religiously divisive implications of this new rule are troubling in any of these contexts, however it is particularly disturbing at the local level where ordinary citizens seek recourse from public officials and will likely feel pressured to participate in religious observances not of their own faith.

"Although the decision does not facially overturn long-standing Establishment Clause standards that are essential in other contexts, we are deeply concerned that taken out of context, certain language from the opinion could be used to undermine these standards and in future cases we will urge courts to narrowly interpret the opinion."

This is the first time the Supreme Court has ruled on legislative prayer since its Marsh v. Chambers decision 30 years ago. The Court represented that its ruling on the Town of Greece’s invocation policy is simply based on its prior ruling. The decision, however, opens the door wide to overtly sectarian prayers before public meetings of government bodies, the ADL said.

Legislative invocations and prayers can now only be limited where there is a “pattern of prayers that over time denigrate, proselytize, or betray an impermissible purpose.” This limitation does not adequately protect those who are in religious minorities or those who are non-religious from feeling isolated, vulnerable or like second-class citizens in their own communities.

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Elena Kagan illustrated that the Court’s majority paid little heed to the actual way in which the invocations have been delivered in the Town of Greece, where the typically small number of meeting attendees have frequently been asked to stand and pray in Jesus’ name when meetings convene, or to call unwanted attention to themselves by walking out, the ADL said.

Justice Kagan concluded her dissent by stating – “[w]hen the citizens of this country approach their government, they only do so as Americans, not as members of one faith or another. And that means that even in a partly-legislative body, they should not confront-government-sponsored worship that divides them along religious lines.”

ADL joined with the American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union and Interfaith Alliance Foundation in a coalition brief in this case.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a non-profit law firm that has represented EWTN Global Catholic Network and Hobby Lobby in their fight against the Obamacare contraception mandate, praised the decision.

"As a people we will always have disagreements about religion," said Eric Rassbach, Deputy General Counsel at the Becket Fund. "But that reality cannot be used as an excuse to banish religious activity entirely from public life. The Founders recognized that prayer is not a trivial matter, but plays a central role in the life of our nation. All the Court did today is repeat what the Founders said so many years ago."

The American Humanist Association announced a new program that will provide resources for atheists and humanists to deliver secular invocations during legislative meetings.

The Supreme Court’s ruling, authored by Justice Kennedy, makes clear that local governments must make “reasonable efforts to identify all of the congregations located within its borders” and welcome an invocation by anyone who wishes to give one, regardless of their faith. The majority decision also states that the policy must be one of nondiscrimination. The opinion adds that the invocations must not “denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion.”

The Humanist Society, an adjunct of the American Humanist Association, has offered to serve as a platform for humanists to be identified within local government borders so that they can offer secular invocations pursuant to a legislative prayer practice. Though this is a new program, there are already 50 individuals approved to give secular invocations, and the program is actively seeking to bolster this number.

“Non-religious people are often asked to contribute to a ceremonial event, but some struggle to find an alternative to religious wording,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “We want to make it easier for anyone who wants to give a secular invocation so that legislative meetings can be nondiscriminatory.”

Monica Miller, attorney for the American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center, said, “While we would have preferred the Supreme Court to rule against any kind of prayer during government meetings by overruling the 1983 Marsh v. Chambers decision, the Supreme Court’s ruling emphasizes that local governments must be inclusive in their prayer policies, meaning that humanists must be allowed to deliver secular invocations whenever a government allows citizens of other faiths to deliver prayers at its meetings.”

The Center for Inquiry, an organization advocating science, reason, and secular values, filed an amicus brief with the Court last year, arguing against legislative prayer.

The Center for Inquiry expressed deep disappointment at the Supreme Court’s ruling today in favor of sectarian legislative prayer in the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway, saying that this ill-reasoned and constitutionally infirm decision sets a dangerous precedent for the blending of religion and government, and sends a message of exclusion to those who do not follow the majoritarian belief system.

Town of Greece v. Galloway involved a challenge to opening prayers at town board meetings, which citizens with business before the board are required to attend. Since the town initiated the practice in 1999, the prayers have been overwhelmingly Christian in nature.

“Our Constitution demands respect for the beliefs of everyone. Sectarian prayer during public meetings of government bodies unquestionably contradicts that constitutional mandate,” said attorney Ronald A. Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry. “Sectarian prayer endorses a particular set of religious beliefs, and excludes not only the nonreligious, but those of differing faiths. It conveys the unmistakable message that those who do not share the majority’s beliefs are second-class citizens.”

Added Lindsay, “The majority’s reliance on tradition ignores the enormous changes in American society, and dismisses the concerns of the rapidly growing population of nonbelievers, as well as those who have beliefs that differ from mainstream Christianity. It’s both striking and sad that five of the six Christian justices on the Supreme Court formed the majority. With a Supreme Court that appears hostile to the rights of religious minorities, those of us who believe in a secular government must redouble our legal and advocacy efforts.”

The Liberty Institute, a Christian organization that had filed a brief in Galloway v. Town of Greece, issued the following statement:

“We are thankful that the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the practice of opening governmental meetings in prayer, as our founders did over 200 years ago,” said Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of Liberty Institute. “Saying prayers at governmental meetings will remain uninterrupted and uncensored as intended by our Founders and required by the First Amendment.”